[Paracelsus] Re: Pesticides Save Lives (fwd)

[Guest guest]

Isn't it astounding what people do for money and power?

> Pesticides Save Lives

> by Driessen

>

> Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A

> Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise,

> and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death

> (www.Eco-Imperialism.com)

FACTSHEET: Driessen

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1038

Principal, Global-Comm Partners

Senior Fellow, Atlas Economic Research Foundation Senior Fellow (Atlas

Economic Research Foundation has received $505,000 from ExxonMobil

since 1998.) , Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) Senior

Fellow (Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow has received $257,000

from ExxonMobil since 1998.), Frontiers of Freedom Institute Senior

Fellow Frontiers of Freedom Institute and Foundation has received

$467,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.), Center for the Defense of Free

Enterprise (Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise has received

$40,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.)

Driessen is a corporate/government frontman hack that makes his

living writing articles and books that support the corporate game.

Knowing full well that the Internet is the last bastion of free,

accessible information the powers-that-be have stuffed and diluted the

World Wide Web with half-truths and misinformation. Typical examples

would be websites for organizations with attractive-sounding and

deceiving names like : A Better Earth.org: Alternative Approaches for

Environmental Concerns, or Junk Science.com. (Junk Science's " 100

things you should know about DDT " is as criminal as and revealing as

the work of Driessen's : http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm)

The push to sell DDT under the guise of helping poor starving diseased

countries and their inhabitants is an emotional ploy designed to unload

a dangerous product that has been made illegal to use in the US to

third-world markets. (Where were these people when the Ugandans were

killing over 1,000,000 of each other, or when AIDS was spread

throughout Africa via tainted smallpox vacines?) Of course I am

preaching to the choir here.

An equally spooky interview with the esteemed Driessen can be

found at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11989

An interesting and enlightening historical article on the subject of

the Pesticide Conspiracy is copied below.

http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Science-For-SaleVanDenBosch1978.htm

The Pesticide Conspiracy

Dr. van den Bosch

Doubleday 1978

Chapter 12

Science For Sale

----------

Dr. van den Bosch was a professor of entomology and chairman of the

Division of Biological Control at the University of California,

Berkeley. A Guggenheim Fellow. He had consulted to the Ford

Foundation, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the United

Nations, and several foreign nations. In a phone call by mindfully.org

to UC Berkeley, we learned that the professor died shortly this book

was published. It would have been an honor for us to have had an

opportunity to speak with him.

In 1970 the agri-chemical industry ran up the full hurricane flag as

the pesticide tempest gathered force. The national organization

apparently decided that the environmentalists were a real threat to the

status quo and that it was time to bring in the heavy artillery and

rescue the day. Conferences were held and a battle plan drawn. This

plan, which somehow fell into my hands, is too complex and lengthy to

detail, but among its facets was a strategy for deep penetration of the

scientific societies and the land-grant universities and utilization of

those agencies to help tell the " truth " about pesticides. I am aware of

two apparent products of this campaign. One is called CAST, an acronym

for Council for Agricultural Science and Technology; the other (now

deceased) was called the California Educational Foundation on

Agriculture and Food Production (CEFAFP).

The purported goals of each organization seem noble. CASTS purpose is

" to increase the effectiveness of agricultural scientists as sources of

information for the government and the public on the science and

technology of agricultural matters of broad national concern. " CEFAFP

stated its purpose as " to begin, and continue, a vigorous educational

program on the role of chemicals in modern agriculture and on their

relationship to the environment and the demands of the public for

attractive, safe, and wholesome food. "

These are high-sounding objectives, but a peek beneath the scab causes

one to wonder just what they mean. Take CAST, for example. I first

heard of this group through a letter that its organizers mailed to

ag-university administrators in 1972. The letter lamented the lack of

input from agricultural interests into the legislative and executive

branches of government in matters concerning the impact of

agri-technology on the environment. Instead of agriculturalists, the

letter complained, consumer groups and persons who do not represent

agricultural interests were the principal sources of information on

these matters. It further stated that the non-agricultural public, in

being concerned about agricultural impact on the environment, received

its information all too often from persons with little real

understanding.

The letter seemed a reasonable argument for rational inputs by

agri-technologists into government and did not arouse my suspicions

until, in a late paragraph, there was a suggestion that agricultural

scientists take their case to the agri-business industry and solicit

financial support.

One wonders whether signals had been sent out that such seed money

would be available for the asking. Whatever the case, CAST has had

excellent success in getting industry support to help launch its

operations. A glance at its list of supporting members reveals such

agri-chemical company names as Amchem Products, Inc., American Cyanamid

Company, CIBA-GEIGY Corporation, Dow Chemical USA, E. I. du Pont de

Nemours & Company, Eli Lilly and Company, Fike Chemicals, Fisons Corp.,

Montrose Chemical Corp. (famous for its role in the DDT issue),

-Hayward Chemical Company, and Woolfolk Chemical Works, Ltd.

Organizations supplying grants in 1974 included Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.,

Merck & Co., Inc., and Monsanto Company.97

In fact, the agri-business firms supply about two thirds of the

operating capital that helps CAST inform " the government and the public

on the science and technology of agri cultural matters, " including

pesticides such as aldrin-dieldrin, chlordane, heptachlor, and

presumably others. For example, during the 1975 76 fiscal year

agri-business contributed 64.7 percent CAST's $116,000 budget 98

97. Included as an enclosure in a letter sent to Dr. E. Swift on

September 3, 1974, by A. Black, executive vice-president of

CAST.

98. J. M. Witt, 1976. The contrary statement to-Proposed that the ESA

(Entomological Society of America) should affiliate with CAST. Bull.

Ent. Soc. America 22 (1) : 31-36.

Above and beyond its strong identification with and financial reliance

upon agri-business, what is most disturbing about CAST is the open

identification of a number of scientific societies with its operation.

In fact, listed on the CAST letterhead, which originates out of the

Department of Agronomy at Iowa State University, are the following

scientific societies, councils, and associations: American Forage and

Grassland Council, American Society for Horticultural Science, American

Society of Agronomy, American Society of Animal Science, Association of

Official Seed Analysts, Council on Soil Testing and Plant Analysis,

Crop Science Society of America, Poultry Science Association, Society

of Nematologists, Soil Science Society of America, and Weed Science

Society of America. Recently CAST has bagged two additional plums, the

influential Entomological Society of America and the Phytopathological

Society of America. The hypocrisy of the CAST operation is that it

flaunts its " scientific members on its letterhead but judiciously

avoids citing its corporate supporters, who plunk down the bread that

makes the thing go. The tragedy of CAST is that it has sucked in

thousands of good-guy ag researchers to " represent agricultural

interests, " while in truth they are primarily serving to enhance

corporate greed.

CAST's member " scientific " councils and societies are so genuinely

involved with the activities, products, and interests of agri-business,

that neither their officers nor the majority of their members appear to

discern that they are being used to further corporate interests. I do

not mean to imply that these scientists are lacking in intelligence or

integrity but, rather, that most, as gentle, narrowly oriented, sincere

people, apparently never dream that Machiavellian minds are at work to

use them.

As a scientist, I can understand the desire on the part of my peers for

the public to. know the truth about technical issues, because that is

exactly my motivation in speaking out on the pesticide issue. I also

know that much distortion has been uttered or published on

agri-technical matters. However, the misrepresentations have occurred

on both sides of the issue, and it is up to the individual to judge

what is right and what is wrong in these cases, and individually to

seek a vehicle to express his viewpoint. On the other hand, it is I

think completely improper for entire scientific societies to line up in

an industry-subsidized club to support pesticides, growth hormones,

chemical fertilizers, or what have you and promulgate a

pro-agribusiness party line that all is well with agri-chemical

practice, while condemning as fools or liars those who dissent. This,

in effect, is what the member societies of CAST are doing, and for them

to do this is a corruption of the scientific ethic that is both

disillusioning and frightening.

In this connection I can relate an interesting anecdote concerning the

EPA-supported study of produce standards which I discussed in Chapter

10. When we submitted our draft version of that report to EPA, the

Agency, following standard procedure with draft documents, sent it out

for comment and criticism to a number of reviewers, including CAST.

Typically, these reviews are considered confidential and to be returned

by the reviewer to the editor (in this case EPA), who in turn transmits

them to the author, who, if he is an astute and experienced scientist,

accepts the constructive suggestions and criticisms and improves his

manuscript. But in the case of our draft report, CAST simultaneously

sent its viciously critical and substantially inaccurate review to the

editors of several agri-chemical-industry-supported trade magazines,

knowing full well that they would attack the study editorially. And of

course they obliged, one labeling the report a " spurious document. " In

making this move, CAST paid its dues to its corporate keepers, but it

also exposed its true nature. I can only hope that from this experience

the sincere scientists who contributed to its critique learned a

lasting lesson about CAST's " honest, " " objective " presentation of

agri-technology to government and the public.

The genesis and modus operandi of .CEFAFP was as disturbing as that of

CAST, and being so close to home, it was a source of deep personal

apprehension and revulsion. The prime mover of CEFAFP was the then

California Farm Bureau Federation president, Grant,

Reagan's appointee as president of the California Board of Agriculture,

ex-officio regent of the University of California, political

conservative, farmer-cum-land-developer, and staunch proponent of

agri-business and the pesticide status quo. Subsequently, Grant was

elected president of the National Farm Bureau Federation, and who

knows? if RR had won the presidency, Mr. Grant might have been our

Secretary of Agriculture.

One can make his own assumptions as to where Grant got his cue to

launch CEFAFP, but it is interesting to note that the foundation got

much of its seed money from agribusiness (the agri-chemical industry),

just as did CAST, and that its originators and/or initial steering

committee, in addition to Grant, included such folks as Ivan ,

lobbyist for the Western Agricultural Chemicals Association; Mel

Wierenga, sales executive with Ortho Division, Chevron Chemical Corp.;

Woodward, of the Agricultural Chemicals Division, Shell Chemical

Co.; Max Sobelman, president of Montrose Chemical Corp., the country's

sole DDT manufacturer and perennial bone of contention in the seemingly

endless hearings and court cases involving DDT; Dan J. Keating,

Stauffer Chemical Company; Dan Niboli, Wilber Ellis Co. (an

agri-chemical company); H. Jukes, a Berkeley medical physicist

and as Chevron Chemical Company's Agri-Communicator of the Year99 one

of the nation's most outspoken defenders of the agri-chemical status

quo; Hardin B. , a director of Berkeley's Donner Laboratory

(physics), a Jukes crony and another pesticide hard-liner;

Hazeltine, mosquito abater and vociferous proponent of DDT; and Jack

Pickett, ultraconservative publisher of California Farmer and other

supported journals.

99. University Bulletin (Univ. of California) Vol. 21: 154, May 28,

1973: " News from the Campuses. Awards and Honors. Jukes, H.

Professor of Medical Physics in Residence, Berkeley: Honorary

Recognition for Communicative Skills from the Chevron Chemical

Company. "

This was some kind of lineup to plan a campaign to " begin and continue

a vigorous educational program on the role of chemicals in modern

agriculture, on their relationship to the environment and the demand of

the public for attractive, safe, and wholesome food. " One can hardly

doubt that these people had little else in mind than spraying as usual

or, better yet, spraying as it was in the good old days.

The formative meetings of CEFAFP were attended by representatives and

proponents of the agri-chemical industry and by agriculturists and

University of California personnel. I was aware at the time (1970) that

an educational foundation on agriculture and food production was in the

gestation state and that it would emphasize telling the " truth " about

agri-chemicals. I also knew that university personnel were involved,

but the names mentioned were not of researchers such as R. F. , C.

B. Huffaker, V. M. Stern, H. T. Reynolds, K. S. Hagen, L. A. Falcon,

and others deeply concerned with the development of integrated control;

instead they were university administrators and extension personnel who

had been largely active in rationalizing prevailing pesticide use. The

mention of such names as Grant, Jukes, , Hazeltine, Woodward,

Wierenga, Ivan , and Jack Pickett in connection with the proposed

organization was a further indication that this educational foundation

would be dedicated to preserving the status quo.

That there were deep political overtones of a conservative stripe to

the group could have been guessed by a perusal of the roster of

originators and steering-committee members, who, in addition to Reagan

protégé Grant, included Long, a Bank of America

vice-president later appointed Under-Secretary of Agriculture by

President Nixon, who subsequently served in that capacity in the Ford

administration. As mentioned earlier, Long appeared at the 3.975

meeting of the Entomological Society of America as a friend of the

agri-chemical industry to meat-ax the pesticide-regulating policies of

EPA.

I would be wrong to ascribe political motivations to a group,

ostensibly concerned with scientific matters, simply because of their

political leanings or appointments. But these people have tipped their

hand by repeatedly implying that the environmental movement is largely

a cover for leftist and radical groups to further their objective of

destroying the country's political and economic system.100

100. R.M Hawthorne, 1970. Estimated damage and crop loss caused by

insect/mite pests. California Dept. of Agriculture. E-82-13. Nov. 6,

1972 47pp.

The following excerpts from the minutes of CEFAFP's formative meeting,

held on April 20, 1970, at the California Farm Bureau Federation

headquarters, in Berkeley, and attended by agri-chemical industry,

agriculture, and University of California representatives, reflect the

frightening political overtone of this organization .

.. . . the leftist and radical groups in the U.S. have grasp [sic] the

opportunity to use public concern with environmental quality to promote

and further their objective of destroying our system of business,

industry, and government.

. . . Professors of liberal. and leftist philosophies at universities

and colleges across the country seem to be able, without fear of

chastisement or loss of promotion, to make irresponsible public

statements and claims, while professors having a more conservative

philosophy and supported by scientific facts are denied the same

" Academic Freedom " by their administrative superiors.

The authors of these incredible remarks then went on to suggest that

agriculture, agri-chemical industry, and university (of California)

interests should develop an aggressive, positive, factual public

relations and information program regarding agri-chemicals. Evidently

they had their own ideas about what constituted facts and how to go

about presenting them!

These people dragged the politics of pest control into the gutter on

the right-hand side of the street, and in doing so called those who ask

questions about the impacts of agri-technology some very dirty names.

CEFAFP never accomplished a thing, and it met a well-deserved end in

the autumn of 1974, when it passed the baton to the Council of

California Growers, a major agribusiness PR, lobbying, and

political-pressure group. However, despite its lack of impact and its

early demise, CEFAFP still worked a corruptive evil. Most disturbing to

me was the success of its instigators in associating this ugly

foundling with the University of California. It seems that, like CAST,

CEFAFP needed credibility, and what better banner to wave than that of

a respected institution such as the University. CAST had a whole string

of scientific societies to give it respectability, so CEFAFP apparently

set out to get respectability too. The vice-president for agricultural

sciences at the University of California accepted membership on the

CEFAFP board of directors, as did the prestigious chancellor emeritus

of the University's campus.

Furthermore, an old acquaintance of mine, a university

agricultural-extension specialist, was among CEFAFP's founding group

and was later elected one of its officers. I know this man very well

and respect his honesty and personal integrity, although I differ with

him on many issues regarding pesticides. I prefer to believe that he

was ordered by university brass to partake in the CEFAFP evolution, for

I cannot believe that he would willingly run with a pack that

considered me and many other persons concerned about pesticide use as

being intent upon " destroying our system of business, industry, and

government. "

As I probed the University's involvement in CEFAFP I became

increasingly affected by a feeling of revulsion. At first I had thought

that the institution's role was largely symbolic, something forced upon

it by the political reality of living with Reagan and his

elitist, pro-establishment credo. But as I studied the documentation,

it seemed clear to me that the University was very much a full and

willing partner with agriculture and the agri-chemical industry in the

evolution of this instrument (CEFAFP) designed to maintain the

pesticide status quo and thereby thwart the integrated-control program

being developed by many of the University's most dedicated and

innovative researchers.

I am probably a hopeless idealist, which is the price I pay for being a

scientist. Scientists are molded to seek the truth and tell it. This

ethic is the driving force of my life, and I expect it in other

scientists. Thus, to me, it is always a shattering emotional experience

when I learn of some devious antic by a scientist or a scientific

institution. The emotion comes largely as compassion for the errant

scientist, who, standing naked and exposed before all his peers, is

marked with a brand that survives even beyond the grave: liar, fraud,

plagiarist!

My reaction to the role of the University of California in the CEFAFP

affair was also emotional, but in this case, involving as it did an

institution, it was one of revulsion and sadness. Revulsion because the

University played on the side of an organization dedicated to the

protection of a vested interest, at the expense of society. In this,

the University not only helped cheat society but played a

double-dealing game with its own research scientists. There is no place

for this sort of thing in a great academic institution.

My sadness came in finally recognizing, after rejecting ample prior

hints and warnings, that mother University, whom I have always loved

and revered as a virtual saint, had indeed been sleeping around with

some rather scruffy dudes.

It is terribly frustrating for someone small and isolated to stand by

and witness the corruption of a beloved institution. Mostly, one can

only watch helplessly while immensely powerful groups and individuals

violate her. The University of California is a great university, which

has held up to the forces of corruption reasonably well. Sometimes it

bends, but it doesn't break. That I am still around, taking my shots at

it, testifies to its resilience. But what bothers me is that sometimes

it does bend, and this can only mean that other, less robust

institutions scattered over the land do, indeed, cave in. Life must be

hell for free-thinking academicians in such violated places.

If you have come to this page from an outside location click here to

get back to mindfully.org

----------

____________________________________________________________________________

..............Paracelsus - Clinical Practice in the Healing Arts.............

......... sponsored by Integrative Medical Arts - IBISmedical.com ........

http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/paracelsus

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

visit the HealthWWWeb and Integrative Medical Arts websites

... http://www.HealthWWWeb.com .. http://www.integrativemedicalarts.com ..

....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..

learn more about IBIS - The Integrative BodyMind Information System

Interactions: IBIS Guide to Drug-Herb and Drug-Nutrients Interactions and other

IBISmedical.com Products

.......... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..

.......Integrative Medicine, Natural Health and Alternative Therapies........

[Guest guest]

Wow!

This is the same path I am following in tracking how the science is being

stifled that would allow for medical treatments of people with mold illnesses.

Even many of the names of the same players are present. Have you ever looked

on the ACSH Website? Quite disgusting. Never met a carcinogen their clients'

could be held accountable for. They appear to be a key organization for much

of what you are talking about. Their tenacles can be tracked to numerous

other Societies. Isn't the internet a wonderful thing? Ten years ago, this

info would never have been able to be tracked by the general public. Maybe

because of this fact, it will soon be more difficult for these obsenities to

continue.

Sharon